Het belang van innovatie voor economische groei en het scheppen van werkgelegenheid in het MKB wordt erkend door zowel academici als politici. Er worden daarom programma’s ontwikkeld om innovatie te stimuleren. Met deze maatregelen ontstaat de vraag te bepalen of deze initiatieven succesvol zijn en zo ja, in welke mate. In de literatuur hebben we geen indicator gevonden die ons in staat stelt de mate van innovativiteit van MKB bedrijven te bepalen voor een dergelijke interventie en daarna. De hoofdvraag van ons onderzoek was dan ook: hoe kunnen we het effect van een interventie voor het bevorderen van de innovatiekracht van MKB-bedrijven meten? Kijkend naar de definities van innovatie zoals die zijn verzameld door King & Anderson (2002) hebben we vastgesteld dat een bedrijf innovatief genoemd mag worden als het met opzeten succesvol nieuwe ideeën implementeert. Succesvol wil in dit verband zeggen: het draagt bij aan de winst en dus aan de continuïteit van het desbetreffende MKB-bedrijf. Door de verschillende (bewuste) innovaties te identificeren samen met de ondernemer en te berekenen wat de winstgevendheid is geweest van de innovaties, kunnen we de ’innovatiewinst’ van de ondernemer berekenen. Dit bedrag delen door de omzet creëert een indicator waarmee de innovativiteit van de organisatie door de tijd gemeten kan worden. Wij stellen daarom de volgende definitie van innovatiekracht voor: KIKR = [ [Winst Innovatie1+Winst Innovatie2+ ... +Winst Innovatie5] / Omzet] x 100. De ratio kan alleen met voldoende betrouwbaarheid bepaald worden door een gestructureerd interview met de directeur/ eigenaar van de het bedrijf door een gekwalificeerde gesprekspartner. De auteurs realiseren zich dat dit gesprek op zichzelf misschien een interventie is, omdat de ervaring leert dat het innovatiebewustzijn van de ondernemer er door toeneemt. Om te bepalen of dit daadwerkelijk zo is, en om te testen of de KIKR inderdaad als bruikbare maat voor innovatiekracht kan worden gebruikt is vervolgonderzoek noodzakelijk. Desalniettemin zijn de auteurs van mening dat met de KIKR de innovatiekracht van bedrijven door de tijd heen gemeten kan worden en daarmee een bruikbaar instrument is om het effect te bepalen van interventies die innovatiekracht moeten vergroten. The importance of innovation as an engine for economic growth and the creation of employment opportunities is acknowledged by both academia and politicians. This makes the need for good innovation measures crucial. In the third edition of the Oslo Manual (2005), a need for proper indicators to capture the changes in the nature and landscape of innovation is voiced. According to the manual, a considerable body of models and analytical frameworks for innovation were developed in the 1980s and 1990s. Over time, the scope of what is considered as innovation has been widened and expanded to include marketing and organizational innovation. In this paper, we focus on innovative performance as a measure of success. This is part of ongoing research in the Netherlands in The Hague region. This research is framed within an approach based on action research. We have worked with 45 SMEs in four sectors. This has formed the basis for the conceptual development of innovative performance as a new metric for the measurement of a successful innovation. In this paper, we review our findings thus far and explore the validity of innovative performance as an appropriate indicator for measuring innovation within SMEs.
Continuous monitoring, continuous auditing and continuous assurance are three methods that utilize a high degree of business intelligence and analytics. The increased interest in the three methods has led to multiple studies that analyze each method or a combination of methods from a micro-level. However, limited studies have focused on the perceived usage scenarios of the three methods from a macro level through the eyes of the end-user. In this study, we bridge the gap by identifying the different usage scenarios for each of the methods according to the end-users, the accountants. Data has been collected through a survey, which is analyzed by applying a nominal analysis and a process mining algorithm. Results show that respondents indicated 13 unique usage scenarios, while not one of the three methods is included in all of the 13 scenarios, which illustrates the diversity of opinions in accountancy practice in the Netherlands.
Person-centeredness refers to an individually-tailored, holistic approach to meeting a person's needs and recognizing the client as an expert and active participant in the rehabilitation process. This article focuses on a study conducted in Estonia to analyze the perceptions of persons with disabilities about person-centeredness by exploring their experiences about received disability services and participation in an initial rehabilitation needs assessment process. Twelve in-depth interviews were conducted in different regions of Estonia with persons with disability. Data were analyzed using qualitative thematic analysis. The aim of the research project (2010–2015) was to design a person-centered initial rehabilitation needs assessment instrument. Results revealed that in describing their experiences, study participants identified important components of person-centeredness: (1) understanding service users and meeting their individual needs, (2) connecting and partnering with service users, (3) providing appropriate information, and (4) addressing issues of power and empowerment. If these components are included, service users are more likely to become motivated to consider their situation and take more control of their lives. These findings may be of relevance for countries considering needs-based referrals to rehabilitation services and refocusing disability services using a person-centered approach
This project aims to develop a measurement tool to assess the inclusivity of experiences for people with varying challenges and capabilities on the auditory spectrum. In doing so, we performed an in-depth exploration of scientific literature and findings from previous projects by Joint Projects. Based on this, we developed an initial conceptual model that focuses on sensory perception, emotion, cognition, and e[ort in relation to hearing and fatigue. Within, this model a visitor attraction is seen as an “experienscape” with four key elements: content, medium, context, and individual. In co-creative interviews with experts by experience with varying challenges on the auditory spectrum, they provided valuable insights that led to a significant expansion of this initial model. This was a relevant step, as in the scientific and professional literature, little is known about the leisure experiences of people with troubled hearing. For example, personal factors such as a person’s attitude toward their own hearing loss and the social dynamics within their group turned out to greatly influence the experience. The revised model was then applied in a case study at Apenheul, focusing on studying differences in experience of their gorilla presentation amongst people with varying challenges on the auditory spectrum.Societal issueThe Netherlands is one of the countries in Europe with the highest density of visitor attractions. Despite this abundance, many visitor attractions are not fully accessible to everyone, particularly to visitors with disabilities who sometimes are not eligible to ride due to safety concerns, yet when eligible generally still encounter numerous barriers. Accessibility of visitor attractions can be approached in various ways. However, because the focus often lies on operational and technical aspects (e.g., reducing stimuli at certain times of the day by turning o[ music, o[ering alternative wheelchair entrances), strategic and community-focused approaches are often overlooked. More importantly, there is also a lack of attention to the experience of visitors with disabilities. This becomes apparent from several studies from Joint Projects, where visitor attractions are being visited together with experts by experience with various disabilities. Nevertheless, experience is often being regarded as the 'core product' of the leisure sector. The right to meet, discover, develop, relax and thus enjoy this core product is hindered for many people with disabilities due to a lack of knowledge, inaccessibility (physical, digital, social, communicative as well as financial) and discrimination in society. Additionally, recreation entrepreneurs still face a significant gap in reaching the potential market of guests with disabilities and their networks. Thus, despite the numerous initiatives in the leisure sector aimed at improving accessibility on technical and operational fronts, often people with disabilities are still not being able to experience the same kind of enjoyment as those without. These observations form the pressing impetus for initiating the current research project, tapping into the numerous opportunities for learning, development and growth on making leisure offer more inclusive.Benefit to societyIn total, the current project approach comes with a number of enrichments in terms of both knowledge and methodology: a mixed-methods approach that allows for comparing data from different sources to obtain a more complete picture of the experience; a methodological co-design process that honours the 'nothing about us without us' principle; and benchmarking for a group (i.e., people with challenges on the auditory spectrum) that despite the size of its population has thus far mostly been overlooked.
The issue addressed by the project is the necessity to implement European coordinated approaches for the management of Waste from Electrical, Electronic Equipment (WEEE).WEEE Directive 2012/19/EU established for 2016 a minimum collection rate of 45% of all WEEE placed on the market in the preceding 3 years (in 2018, the EU rate was 47%), but from 2019 the rate rose to 56% (or 85% of the WEEE generated on the country).European Court of Auditors 2021 review “EU actions and existing challenges on electronic waste” point out that the collection, recycling and reuse of 3-waste are not equally effective in all Member States.Unfortunately, each country in the EU has decided a way to implement the Directive, which means 27 different implementations. In 2019, only Bulgaria, Croatia and Poland achieved the 65% target, while other countries such as Italy, Romania or Germany were at the bottom of EU list with 40%.WEEEWaste aims to implement better national, regional and local policies for management of WEEE, covering the main recommendations of the “Circular Electronics Initiative” from the EU Circular Economy AP.The final objective of WEEEWaste is to promote reuse, collection, recycling and other forms of recovery of WEEE, supporting thus the achievement of the WEEE Directive 2012/19/EU.Partners from 9 regions (Czechia, Italy, Germany, Spain, Romania, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, Netherlands) will exchange practices in a discovery journey to modify their policies, focusing on: To improve the interregional coordination of municipalities an regions in order to fight more effectively against illegal shipment between areas and WEE dumping.
